Forum:Undeveloped pages
I came across quite a few undeveloped pages that basically had nothing but two templates: an ownership template Template:Property and a template saying that the page is under construction. Why are empty pages considered 'under construction'? It is merely an instance of pointless page creation / article-name squatting (since the article has Template:Property in it, the appearance is that it can't be modified by anyone else, even though the one creating the article hasn't put in any content). Such pages serve no purpose but to irritate all-pages surfers who find -- nothing. These undeveloped pages should be deleted. Cheers, Yunzhong Hou :I don't think the owners of the pages would want them deleted, they maybe don't have the time to create them or are there as a placeholder, also, Property doesn't means you can't edit the page, you can still correct things, but you can't add content, that could make the article's owner angry, I suggest The Coal Rocks that is an open article if you want to edit other's articles. : 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ::"you can't add content, that could make the article's owner angry" - But that's exactly Yun's point, if somebody creates an article for a spaceholder no one else can create an article of the same name with different content. And that's BAD, because very often the people who created the shell articles never flesh them out. There's ample proof of that on other imagination-based wikia, and the situation isn't that much different here. For some, the 'owners' aren't here any more. And why are we using 'owners' in this context anyway, isn't that the point of Template:Creator? Abcxyzzzz 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC) You can create two articles of the same name, there is a policy about that, lets put it with an example: You wake up some day and come with a great idea for an article, you create the article but lose the inspiration, you begin building your article in your mind, when you come back from designing the images and putting your ideas together, you find that your article was deleted. Some people may react quitting the wiki, and sincerely that isn't what we want. Also, I don't like how you put the word "owners" as if they were bad people, they have their articles for a reason, they recognize when they need an article deleted, or if you want, here is another example: You are trying to make an article, you are thinking the best introduction, but you realize you have work to do, you save and leave the article, you then come back and find it deleted. Still, maybe something could be done with empty articles of very unactive users, or unused articles. If you want quick answers, have a word with Chiafriend12. 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :So... where are the 'rules', and how can you create two articles of the same name without using a disambiguation page? :I understand what you mean by building the article after creating a placeholder. Frankly, I agree. I just think that having a placeholder for the sake of a placeholder isn't the best idea, ie. we should delete placeholders after a day or two. On other wikia creating such placeholders is only a few steps away from being labelled as spam. :From what I understand at Central Wikia's article about ownership, we reserve the rights to our intellectual knowledge, but we shouldn't expect that our pages on wikis will remain static (unchanged by others). As a writer, I respect the concept of ownership and copyright very much, but the problem is that the wikis don't like that idea. The idea of a wiki is for collaboration, and since that is the case, owning a page would go against that goal of working together. You can't work together on protected pages. If you don't want to work together with others, you should go get your free private webpage from Yahoo Geocities or something. The price of running MediaWiki is the GFDL licensing. :Well if you are still thinking about the introduction, then you obviously haven't created any content. So what's there to fret over when the shell of an article gets deleted? It'll take you 20 seconds to recreate what got deleted, since almost nothing was there in the first place. Definitely we should do something about the empty articles of inactive users. :Hope this helps, --Yunzhong Hou ::Perhaps we should axe the whole ownership idea. The template would be replaced with a free edit message. But to do that, we would need a petition. When I joined, pretty much all the pages were 'owned' so I decided that I had to own my pages as well. I was actually hoping for everything to be completely free-edit. -- ChelseaFan528 10:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) :::If anyone could edit anything, anyone at any time could complete an unfinished article or make an article which was thought up by someone else. I'm currently slowly working on fixing all the red links and adding articles in my Golathian saga, and finishing up the articles I've made. Someone could make or finish the articles that were thought up by me, and have a completely different plot and outcome as I've thought up. I'm planning on the Golathians taking Kandarin easily, but getting stopped between Hemenster and Ardougne. Someone else could make it so the Golathians capture all of Kandarin within a day, enslave the population, and burn the cities to the ground. :::The main point of the ownership of articles is so people don't change things without the author's permission, and quickly identifying who made what. :::You don't have to make the things you make non-free-edit. You can always tag it with "Category:Free-edit articles" so others may contribute. 01:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, good point. (There was no template when I joined.) However, in your scenario, couldn't you just edit it to what you wanted? Then they couldn't change it back, because that would be edit warring! (Pun not intended) ::::Perhaps finished articles could be owned, but under-construction articles would not. The finished articles would be owned by the article creator, whereas under-construction articles could be automatically free edit. -- ChelseaFan528 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)